EFF opens the “Takedown Hall of Shame”

Missing that wonderful surge of anger that comes from hearing about some bogus …

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a big fan of naming and shaming. When it launched its patent-busting project a few years back, the activist group put up a "Wanted by EFF marshals" poster; eight of the ten patents on the list have already been narrowed, invalidated, or reexamined.

So when it wanted to highlight the overzealous use of DMCA takedown notices on the Web, the EFF went a similar route with its new "Takedown Hall of Shame."

Initially, eight items have been granted the coveted laurel wreath of infamy:

NPR's takedown request of some All Things Considered audio used in a recent same-sex marriage ad

The National Organization for Marriage's takedown request on audition footage for its anti-gay marriage ad

Diamond giant DeBeers' attempt to shutter a parody site that looked like the New York Times and contained a fake DeBeers ad reading: "Your purchase of a diamond will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in diamond conflicts. DeBeers: from her fingers to his."

NBC's takedown request of an Obama campaign video in which Tom Brokaw calls the election for John McCain

Most of these takedown requests have already been overturned or rescinded, though not all of them. The Obama video, made to encourage supporters to get out and vote, remains inaccessible on YouTube.

A careful look at the list is instructive. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is on the list because gay-marriage supporters somehow got hold of the audition tapes for NOM's best-known ad, tapes that were then aired on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. NOM sent a takedown notice.

Ironically, NOM had been on the receiving end of just such a request a few weeks earlier, during the controversy over Miss California, Carrie Prejean. When Prejean came out against gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant, judge Perez Hilton bashed Prejean as a "dumb bitch."

NOM promptly stuck this footage in one of its ads to show the intolerance of the "tolerant" Hilton, and Hilton filed a takedown request (as did the Miss USA pageant). Weeks later, NOM tried the same thing, and was just as successful; the clip is still up on the MSNBC web site.

One other item of interest: Big Content is represented less than one might think. The complete list does mention NBC, NPR, Warner Music, CBS News, and Universal Music, but it's dominated by smaller, non-media players like Union Square Partnership, Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Uri Geller, Diebold, and DeBeers.

If you talk to lawyers for the big content providers (which we do so you don't have to! I kid, they're nice people), they will point out that the flood of DMCA takedown notices they issue results only in a handful of problem cases. These are then—unfairly, in their view—harped on repeatedly to suggest that they care nothing for fair use, have no sense of proportion, and probably nibble on succulent children for breakfast.

You shouldn't joke about being our proxies in the search for truth unless you are willing to attempt to live up to that responsibility.

Your article was NOT a deep dive.

The NPR "shameful" take down order was about this video. From the narrow perspective of fair use it seems fairly clear cut. The video only used a few clips of the entire program and it was in my opinion fair use. However, the ad used the portions of the piece in a way completely contrary to the overall message of the report.

So, on the one hand we have NPR violating the spirit of fair use, but on the other we have an organization using fragments of the report to mislead people. As an organization that promotes open and honest discussion you would think that NPR would tolerate the fair use of its product and would restrict its response to pointing how how it is being used dishonestly. From that perspective both the EFF and Nate do a good job pointing out a problem. Where both fail is providing perspective. I guess Nate can be forgiven because he is just doing a short piece on the website and not the issue the website is covering, but the website fails to provide perspective beyond the narrow "these people violated the spirit of fair use by issuing take down notices where none were warranted".

If Nate and the website only want to cover the story from one perspective I can understand that, but if either one wants to be my proxy in the search for truth, they need to have a wider perspective. You can advocate for one particular side, but please at least attempt to tell me what some of the other perspectives are.

Originally posted by FreeRadical*:If Nate and the website only want to cover the story from one perspective I can understand that, but if either one wants to be my proxy in the search for truth, they need to have a wider perspective. You can advocate for one particular side, but please at least attempt to tell me what some of the other perspectives are.

Not that I particularly like the imagery behind 2 dudes bumping uglies, but I do find it a bit strange that we live in a world where these religious bigots are afraid that someone might tell their kids that homosexuality exists.

I mean really is it so important that your kids be sheltered from reality long enough that you can institute your own form of brain washing to ensure that your kids are knuckle dragging, god fearing bigots just like you. I mean what would the world be like without liberal use of the word faggot, and the occasional back alley gay bashing?

I have an idea, if god hates they gays so much why don't you just pray really really hard that he makes them straight like all the rest of us? I am sure he is listening and cares enough to do that for you.

Originally posted by FrankDCat:From DMCA to pedophilia? Please sir, at long last, have you no shame?

Seriously? Pedophilia? It would be cannibalism, if anything. Good god, have YOU no shame? Please read properly.

@FreeRadical*: sounds like you need to get off your duff and become a journalist, as you obviously can see the wide perspective. Good luck with that. Nate has generally always delivered high quality (and funny to boot) coverage of the topics he writes about. Some of his statements may be based off personal speculation or opinion, but he's never really been of the brow-beating nor the "dupe the masses" mentality. I'm not sure why you should lambaste him simply because he made a cute joke/aside. Why do people who read his articles and respond as such not have a sense of humor? Sheesh, go back to New York Times or something like that if you want bone-dry reporting with no life added into it. It will only cover one side of the issue too, I'll bet.

Originally posted by FreeRadical*:From the narrow perspective of fair use it seems fairly clear cut. The video only used a few clips of the entire program and it was in my opinion fair use. However, the ad used the portions of the piece in a way completely contrary to the overall message of the report.

The EFF isn't defending the video. They're attacking NPR for abusing (and therefore weakening) the legal system. There are other laws that cover defamation etc. The DMCA doesn't apply.

Originally posted by Nate Anderson:One other item of interest: Big Content is represented less than one might think. The complete list does mention NBC, NPR, Warner Music, CBS News, and Universal Music...

You shouldn't joke about being our proxies in the search for truth unless you are willing to attempt to live up to that responsibility.

Your article was NOT a deep dive.

Sorry, I don't follow the complaint being made here. All I was saying was that I've interacted with many lawyers from the movie and music business in interviews, at conferences, etc, over the years, and when asked about DMCA takedowns, nearly all stress just how few bogus ones there are that come from their companies. This particle article is obviously not a deep dive into the DMCA takedown process, and I'm not clear why anyone thinks it was meant to be.

Originally posted by Nate Anderson:One other item of interest: Big Content is represented less than one might think. The complete list does mention NBC, NPR, Warner Music, CBS News, and Universal Music...

Not a complaint, but feedback. Understood the joke and that the scope of the article did not require getting an alternative view beyond "lawyers say the violations are more the exception rather than the rule".

Still, if for some reason you did want to present a wider perspective, it might be well received. Ben Kuchera could have just written up his experience with those gaming glasses and presented the material provided by the company, but he went out of his way to get an independent optometrist to provide her perspective and I really appreciated that extra effort and would like to see more of it.

Nate's article was great and the only reason I wanted more information was because I didn't want to believe that NPR would try to abuse copyright laws. There was no reason for Nate to even consider investigating what NPR did and whether it was indeed shameful unless of course he was acting as my personal research assistant then he should have done what I did and find out that NPR did indeed violated the spirit of fair use.

So, I was trying to respond to Nate's humor with a comment in the same tone saying "oh yeah, well if you really want to do things so I don't have to how about doing this...".